The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

reneweddaybyday · May 25, 2020

Thayer's #5036 ταχύς:

ταχύς, ταχεῖα, ταχύ, from Homer down, quick, fleet, speedy: opposed to βραδύς (as in Xenophon, mem. 4, 2, 25), εἰς τόἀκοῦσαι (A. V. swift to hear), James 1:19.

Thayer's #5035 ταχύ:

ταχύ (neuter of the adjective ταχύς), adverb (from Pindar down), quickly, speedily (wihtout delay): Matthew 5:25; Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:8 Rec.; Luke 15:22 L Tr brackets WH; John 11:29; ἔρχεσθαι, Revelation 2:5 Rec.bez elz, ; ; forthwith, i. e. while in the use of my name he is performing mighty works, Mark 9:39.

Thayer's #5034 τάχος:

τάχος, τάχους, τό, from Homer down, quickness, speed: ἐντάχει (often in Greek writings from Aeschylus and Pindar down), quickly, shortly, Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; (); Romans 16:20; speedily, soon (German in Bälde), Luke 18:8; 1 Timothy 3:14 L TrWH; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6.

Thayer's #5033 τάχιστα:

τάχιστα (neuter plural of the superlative ταχιστος, from ταχύς), adverb (from Homer down), very quickly: ὡς τάχιστα, as quickly as possible (A. V. with all speed), Acts 17:15.

Thayer's #5032 τάχειον:

[τάχειον, WH for τάχιον (which see; and cf. under the word εἰ, ἰ.) ταχέως (ταχύς), adverb (from Homer down), quickly, shortly: Luke 14:21; Luke 16:6; John 11:31; 1 Corinthians 4:19; Galatians 1:6; Philippians 2:19, 24; 2 Timothy 4:9; with the added suggestion of inconsiderateness (hastily): 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Timothy 5:22.

STRONGS NT 5032: τάχιοντάχιον (WH τάχειον; see their Appendix, p. 154 and cf. εἰ, ἰ) (neuter of the comparitive ταχίων), adverb, for which the more ancient writers used θᾶσσονor θᾶττον, see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 76f; Winers Grammar, § 11, 2a.; (Buttmann, 27 (24)); more swiftly, more quickly: in comparison, John 20:4 (cf. Winers Grammar, 604 (562)); with the suppression of the second member of the comparison (Winer's Grammar, 243 (228)): Hebrews 13:19 (sooner, namely, than would be the case without your prayers for me),23 (namely, than I depart); John 13:27(namely, than you seem to have resolved to); 1 Timothy 3:14 R G T(namely, than I anticipated).

Thayer's #5031 ταχινός:

ταχινός, ταχινή, ταχινόν, from Theocritus down, swift, quick: of events soon to come or just impending, 2 Peter 1:14; 2 Peter 2:1 (Isaiah 59:7; Wis. 13:2; Sir. 18:26).

Thayer's #5030 ταχέως:

ταχέως, (ταχύς), adv., [fr. Hom. down], quickly, shortly: Luke 14:21; 16:6; John 11:31; 1 Corinthians 4:19; Galations 1:6; Philipians 2:19,24; 2 Timothy 4:9; with added suggestion of inconsiderateness [hastily]; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Timothy 5:22.*

Thayer's #5029 τάχα:

τάχα (ταχύς), adverb;
1. hastily, quickly, soon (so from Homer down).
2. as often in Greek writings from (Hesiod, Aeschylus), Herodotusdown, perhaps, peradventure: Romans 5:7; Philemon 1:15.

cv5 · May 25, 2020

Yahshua said:

Well at 2:30 is where he makes a case that Luke and Matthew are speaking about two different events. But he makes a mistake. Notice what's said...

Matthew 24-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Famines

- Earthquakes

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven

Mark 13-4-16 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Lack of brotherly love

- The abomination of DESOLATION; Flee to mountains!

- Days of Tribulation begins

- Days cut short because of the elect

- Fearful events & signs from heaven

Luke 21:8-21 (listed):

- Deception

- Wars

- Earthquakes

- Famines

- Pestilences (diseases)

- Fearful events & signs from heaven ("but before this")

- Persecution/death of "them" (His disciples) for their testimony

- Betrayal of kin

- Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its DESTRUCTION is near; Flee to mountains!

- Time of Great Tribulation begins (lit. wrath against these people; Jews) until time of gentiles fulfilled

- Fearful events & signs from heaven (mentioned again)

-----------

So it was the "fearful events & signs from heaven" that were mentioned early in Luke. Aside from that, everything else in Luke's account lines up with the other two accounts. Testimony of two or more establishes truth, so we have to rely on Matthew & Mark as the foundation for the sequence to confirm Luke's account.

LOL......That's not a mistake that's the entire point! I would suggest you carefully go through that video again to understand that there are absolutely clear differences between the three accounts!

acts5_29 · May 25, 2020

Thank you for this keen observation about Luke 21 mentioning Jerusalem is surrounded, while other Synoptic Gospels don't.

However, there is another keen difference I see, that in Luke 21:8 it says, "Jesus replied...," implying that Jesus delivered basically the entire Olivet Discourse then and there. However, Matthew and Mark show that there is a big time lapse between when Jesus says, "Not one stone will be left atop one another..." and the discourse which actually happened on the Mount of Olives. The first few verses of Matthew and Mark were set on the Temple Mount; the remainder are set on the Mount of Olives.

I find it hard to believe, though, that Jesus would say the exact same thing to the exact same people twice, in the exact same location--followed by the same disciples asking Jesus the exact same question again in the same second location. Thus I have to conclude that the Synoptic Gospels are all covering the same incident; albeit with "contradictions" (which are easily resolved).

However, I find it similarly difficult to believe that Jesus would say that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies sometime in the future--except the first time doesn't count. He really means sometime in the DISTANT future when Jerusalem is surrounded a SECOND time. I don't buy that. Was Jesus trying to confuse the disciples?

Blade · May 25, 2020

Well thanks ..not sure if you will get any kind of talk/debate when "The absurdity and heresy" is how you start it. I as of late watched some videos on this. And not one ever talked to the other like this. They found common ground from the start and in the end.. and had a great time talking. Giving Jesus/God all the glory.

Carry on

cv5 · May 25, 2020

acts5_29 said:

The first time did count and He warned about it.

Correct. The text In Matthew and Mark clearly states that he left the Temple premises and went to the Mount of Olives. There he gave a PRIVATE briefing to Peter Andrew James and John alone.
Only in Mark and Matthew does the discourse also including the AOB and Great Tribulation.

A careful and deliberate study in comparison indicates that Luke is remarkably different from Mark and Matthew, and in very significant ways. The differences are so profound that one cannot simply brush it under the rug as a miscommunication of sorts.

IMO there are two different audiences in two different locations for the three discourses. I believe that the Luke account occurred within the confines Temple, to a more or less general audience of disciples (and very likely other onlookers). It is a warning of the 70 A.D. destruction, and then carries on to the times of the gentiles and ultimately the Second Coming.

The Matthew and Mark account does indeed indicate the 70 A.D. destruction as well, but without further details. Then of course the discourses telescope to the far-flung future, giving details about the GT And the AOB, and yet another warning to flee.

Truly the differences are very very great and very profound. They can't be painted over with a broad brush they need to be carefully scrutinized.

acts5_29 · May 25, 2020

Dino246 said:

Here's the thing:

John Wycliffe died for his faith. He translated Revelation into multiple languages. Gutenberg and he are responsible for putting the Bible in the hands of thousands--if not millions--of people. His resume beats all of us. He is more qualified to preach than all of my pastoral staff, save for the minor detail that he's dead.

And I (and probably also you) think *HE* is wrong about historicism. The reason I believe I am right and he is wrong on this one is simple: because Wycliffe did not have the benefit of the last 500 years to look back on in hindsight. But make no mistake: if I was preaching on Revelation one Sunday, and John Wycliffe walked in and wanted to take over, then I'm stepping down and giving him the pulpit. That is a far cry from what I am hearing from other people: "Historicists are all wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. I do. Listen to me, I am a guy on the internet."

cv5 · May 25, 2020

acts5_29 said:

I just need to emphasize one more point. The 70 A.D. destruction absolutely happened, it is a historical fact. The a AOB and GT definitely have not yet occurred. The very structure of the text indicates that there are two warnings for two different times, and two different circumstances.
When you think about it you just can't miss it. Give it some time and study. In my opinion this is a VERY critical portion of Scripture, bcause of the confusion that it can cause, the worst outcome of which is the devastating heresy of preterism.

cv5 · May 25, 2020

acts5_29 said:

I tend to agree. The reformers of old simply could not grasp Revelation. For lack of a better term they just simply put it on the back burner. But we as witnesses in this day and age see very clearly indeed, and understand such things in these last days.

Perhaps 1 Peter 1:10-12 is applicable for those here and now?

Dino246 · May 25, 2020

acts5_29 said:

Here's the thing:

John Wycliffe died for his faith. He translated Revelation into multiple languages. Gutenberg and he are responsible for putting the Bible in the hands of thousands--if not millions--of people. His resume beats all of us. He is more qualified to preach than all of my pastoral staff, save for the minor detail that he's dead.

And I (and probably also you) think *HE* is wrong about historicism. The reason I believe I am right and he is wrong on this one is simple: because Wycliffe did not have the benefit of the last 500 years to look back on in hindsight. But make no mistake: if I was preaching on Revelation one Sunday, and John Wycliffe walked in and wanted to take over, then I'm stepping down and giving him the pulpit. That is a far cry from what I am hearing from other people: "Historicists are all wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. I do. Listen to me, I am a guy on the internet."

I'm not debating historicism with you. I'm debating your implication that he translated Revelation incorrectly because he held to a historicist view.

Nehemiah6 · May 25, 2020

Dave-L said:

So now you are calling the Protestant Reformers tares?

Nehemiah6 · May 25, 2020

Chester said:

You should be aware that the literal Second Coming of Christ is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Therefore its denial is a heresy.

Indeed it is embedded in both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
"And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end."

So when anyone denies this and claims that Christ has already returned "spiritually" in AD 70, that is both a lie and a heresy, since it overthrows the faith of some. Paul had something to say about this in 2 Timothy 2:16-18:

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Dino246 · May 25, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

You are conflating issues, muddying the waters, and misrepresenting the word of God.

The context of the verse you quoted is that Paul was warning Timothy about the danger of empty, godless chatter. Hymenaeus and Philetus were examples of those who engaged in it.

By making their comments the core issue (which they aren't), you are setting up another problem: Paul's letter is part of God's word, which will stand forever. Ergo, Paul's words, "saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some" will eventually be irrelevant because the resurrection will have happened. In the same way that the prophecies of the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled and we no longer look to the future for them, we need to determine whether Paul's words were relevant only for a short time or for a long time.

Also, consider this: many people on this forum believe that the spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues have passed away, and did so at the completion of the canon. If that belief were true, that portion of Scripture would only have been relevant for a scant few decades at most. If you argue for the one, you cannot logically reject the other out of hand.

Now, instead of condemning as heretics everyone who differs from you (which you do often), how about considering the possibility that there is another way to interpret that passage.

Finally, consider this: even Paul didn't call them heretics!

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

biker said:

What? Why would an emporer send a 90 year old man who could not walk and only speak a few words at all to Patmos??? Or did you not know that John had to be carried as an old man in his 90s and could only speak a few words. Even your own reasoning is absurd.

You know, when the Jews and later the Romans where killing the Christians, they did not kill them all using the same method. Why do you think a Roman emporer had to use the same method for all?

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

Many Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book of Revelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple's destruction in A.D. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that “one is” (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and “the other is not yet come” (Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, that Revelation was written while Nero was still alive. In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word "saw" is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to “measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measure what Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple (Ezek. 40—43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time

Actually the evidence has more than two points.

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

Why does a city have to be fully standing to receive letters from John? If they were living there rebuilding, couldn't they have still received letters and the believers suffer under the persecution from Nero? Why does an unfinished city mean they would not have suffered and could not receive mail?

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

Polycarp was born in 69 AD. That means he was an infant during the time we are speaking of.

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.

The earthquake took place in the second century, not the first, 178 AD to be exact.

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

What? Losing a first love can happen in a few years. And in fact, the people in the church in 95 AD were not likely to even be the same people Paul and John wrote to. A whopping 30 years is a long time and the ones Paul and John had written to were long dead at that point. So the younger date makes sense.

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Scribe said:

External Evidence:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus (A.D. 120- 202) around A.D. 180).

Irenaeus was from Asia Minor. The Apostle John was an elder in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement.

Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view. (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)

Same irenause who said Jesus ministered for 15 years and died in his 50s?

DorothyMae · May 26, 2020

Absolutely said:

I have no idea what the "gt" is but the planet is not destroyed same as the earth was covered with watering destroying the land creatures but not the whole earth. The wrath of God fell on the city that joyously crucified the Son of God. It all makes beautiful sense.

If one thinks about it, why would anyone fight to the tooth the theology that promises unbelievable suffering for everyone for no reason and delights in the rise of evil? I used to believe that nonsense as well and then my eyes were opened by the facts of history American Christians are ignorant of. And then I wondered why I thought Jesus was coming in a violent military take over ruthlessly taking over control of the whole planet. It was also a shock to learn that this is exactly what the Pharaisees believed. The Jews would rule the world from Jerusalem. Does that really sound like a loving God? He forces by threat of physical punishment obedience? Tyranny of the worst kind?

The absurdity and heresy of Preterism

Senior Member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned